Printer Outlook?

[Guest sirvine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been printing on my girlfriend's Epson 1280, which is frankly a piece of junk--lots of bronzing on glossy paper, terrible B&W performance, crappy ink, clogged nozzled, bad software, etc., etc.

 

Obviously, I need to step up to a serious photo printer, so I'd like people's thoughts on the current state of affairs. I don't need large format--my biggest prints are 11x17, and most often I print 8x10 on 11x17 or 13x19 paper.

 

If you can't tell, I *hate* using the Epson on my Mac. The drivers are a travesty and ruin about one out of three prints due to their insane interface which seems to have been designed to confuse and complicate. If there is an alternative to the Epson line that has even a chance of being comparable to R2400 in performance, I'd take it on principle alone. However, the Canon Pro 9500 seems to be MIA and there is no serious information or reviews about it online. I have no reason to believe that it would be better from a usability perspective, let alone performance.

 

Does anyone recommend a Mac-friendly, high quality photo printer, or should I just bite the bullet and go Epson again?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest Jeffryabt]

I have been using the Epson 3800 with my Mac and have been very happy!

Note: I use the software that came with the printer along with photoshop.

[robertwright]

If you want an alternative to Epson try HP-I have seen good reviews but not used their HP B 9180 printer.

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html

 

has a lot of reviews and tests.

 

I installed a Canon 9000 dye printer recently and was pleased with it's output, although the prints I saw were not of photo-realistic subjects.

[hdrmd]

An excellent, albeit expensive, way to improve any Epson prinnter is to use the ImagePrint RIP software. Their B&W profiles produce exceptional prints on Epson printers. Here is the url: http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/imageprint.htm.....DR

[LJL]

An excellent, albeit expensive, way to improve any Epson prinnter is to use the ImagePrint RIP software. Their B&W profiles produce exceptional prints on Epson printers. Here is the url: http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/imageprint.htm.....DR

 

Easily seoncd this suggestion. The RIP software will also allow you to print on the greatest variety of paper you could imagine, and ColorByte has even built profiles for me for papers that were not "mainstream". There is a updated verison in the works right now that promises to be even more user friendly.

 

BTW, you can use this RIP for other printers too, not just Epsons, but from what I have seen, they make an Epson sing.

 

For the OP, the HP printers have come a long way rather quickly, and they are now handling more and more paper types than before. The drivers/user interface are quite different from Epson, but I cannot speak to how easy/relaible they are to use. Lots of folks seem comfortable.

 

The Epson 3800 is a very attractive machine. Epson is also rumored to have another machine in the works to replace the 4800 with dual black ink configurations and even better results for glossy printing. Worth checking out. One other note....if you are printing from PS on a Mac with your Epson, make sure you have downloaded the most recent drivers and profiles. There are some significantly improved profiles for some of the printers that are not what shipped with them. Just some things to consider. Good luck with your printer selection, but if you want stunning results that are repeatable and across a great variety of media, take a hard look at the ColorByte ImagePrint RIP, as suggested.....

 

LJ

[ken_tanaka]

The Epson print drivers are not identical across printer models. I found the R2400 driver to be just fine when used properly. (I often find people who have not taken the time to learn how to correctly use their printers, cameras, etc.)

 

Personally, if you don't need to print larger than 13", are only an occasional and/or low-medium volume printer just get the Epson R2400 and call it a day. Any of the Epson K3 printers will perform very well. I use a 3800 today and it's simply superb. But it may be larger and more costly than you need.

 

Regarding the ImagePrint RIP, it's real advantages (commensurate with its formidable cost and awful user interface) were in the pre-K3 / pre-R2400 ink days. I used ImagePrint extensively with my old 2200 to get color and b&w results that are now commonplace with the standard Epson driver and the K3 inks. (I updated my I.P. license for the R2400 but rarely used it, as it offered no discernible added value to me.) ImagePrint does offer extensive paper profiles but, frankly, I choose to use a fairly modest range of 3-4 papers for which there are excellent ICC profiles. My paper potpourri festival days are over and I devote my energies to other creative aspects these days.

 

Adobe's Lightroom also helps to augment ImagePrint's other useful feature which is to print layouts of multiple images on a single page.

[LJL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ken,

I understand what you are saying, but I do find the RIP to improve even the K3 ink profiles from Epson. I have a 2200 that only gets used rarely now. Same for the 4000. But my 7800 with the RIP is cranking all day long for me, and the prints do look better. The best part about the RIP profiles is having various output parameters, such as for viewing under tugnsten light or flourescent or daylight. I frequently tailor client printing output based on how the image will be displayed (lighting).

 

I am using the dual black (Phatte Black) configuration on the 7800 to save from changing out the inks between gloss/matte finish papers, and it still looks as good or better than the Epson B/W only configuration for printing.

 

There is a separate configuration plug-in for PS CS2 and even Aperture, I think, that allows the RIP to be called up from the app for direct layout and printing, as you mention. If one is doing a lot of "package" printing and that sort of output, it is really helpful, but even for single prints, I do think the RIP profiles produce a better result, and actually use less ink, from what I have been seeing.

 

I have no affiliation with ColorByte, etc., and I do agree that their present UI is a bit odd, but once you get things set up, it is a breeze, and the newer UI is supposed to be quite a bit better. Will have to wait and see. Right now, I find it hard to use my other printers that are not on the RIP, as the output just tends to not look as good to me. (I wish the 7800 had a sheet feeder tray for more bliss, but not the case....)

 

LJ

[photolandscape]

I have spent so much on my camera and lenses that I've had to watch my spending on printers.

 

If money is a major consideration, you might want to look at a used Epson 4000 or 7600. They are older by today's standards, but they print beautifully. They also allow you to print on roll paper, which I like. A RIP is nice if you can afford it, but not an absolutely necessity for color printing. You can find excellent examples of the 4000 for $600-$800. The ink costs can be breathtaking, but I buy mine on-line (genuine Epson only)--for about 1/2 of what they retail for, and they last a long time.

 

The biggest issue you may have if you find a 4000 or 7600 on-line, is transporting it. I live in Oregon and found one last year in CA, and picked it up myself. It weighs 80 lbs.

 

Of course if you can afford it, the latest Epson 3800 or HP or Canon printers look good.

[Guest sirvine]

Is anyone using the Canon IPF-5000?

[LJL]

Is anyone using the Canon IPF-5000?

 

Sol,

You might want to check a recent update and report on this printer that is on Luminous Landscape:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/IPF5000-report.shtml

 

LJ

[carcam]

I have had good luck with the HP 9180. I have used it for 4 months with no trouble. They say to keep it on all the time and it periodically cleans the heads or at least somehow keeps them clear. It is limited on which paper to use if you only use their software and profiles, otherwise it is a very good, true pigment printer.

[robbegibson]

Is anyone using the Canon IPF-5000?

 

I am -I sold my Epson 4800 for it. I prefer the prints over the epson. Monochrome is noticeably better, even using the Colorburst RIP with the 4800.

 

Robbe Gibson

[Bill W]

If you use the Epson drivers for the 2400 and let Photoshop determine the colors, I do not know how you could get better results for the money. I bought mine as a refurbished from Epson and it was absolutely new from what I could see. I am not a technical person and it took some reading but I get very consistent results. I do calibrate my monitor as well.

[Guest sirvine]

As a follow up on this thread, I bought the 3800 the other day and have been printing from lightroom, letting the application manage colors. The results are very satisfactory and the printer seems quick and reliable. Lots of ink in there, too.

[gdeliz]

I get excellent results from my two-year old R1800 and, for the 5 years previous to that, my 1270. Except for the initial disappointment with the 1270 orange-fade-on-glossy-paper issue, problems have been very few. I do all my printing through Photoshop with the canned Epson paper profiles and get very satisfactory results.

The main reason I would be reluctant to switch to Canon or HP other than the fact that the Epsons produce excellent prints is that the Epsons are a known quantity and there is a large body of support for the Epsons which does not exist for the others.

 

George Deliz

[cldp]

Epson is also rumored to have another machine in the works to replace the 4800 with dual black ink configurations and even better results for glossy printing. Worth checking out.

 

LJ

 

Does anyone have any information about when the replacement for the 4800 will be released? Thanks.

[butchhul]

If you are interested primarily in B&W as I am, you might consider the Bowhaus RIP (OpenPrintmaker). I have been using it with an Epson 4000 for the last couple of years and getting excellent results. Very tweakable.

 

Butch Hulett

[NZDavid]

It's not just the drivers, it's the whole software package that makes printers so damned frustrating. That goes for ALL models. Sometimes the software works and installs, sometimes it doesn't and even the tech support guys have no idea why. I tried a Canon MP160 multifuction which has a scanner my wife would find useful, but it didn't want to work on the Mac, so I took it back. Instead I got a plain printer and wil buy a separate scanner.

 

All the hassle would be worthwhile if the results were up to snuff, but you really have to wait till you get the thing home, unpacked and set up before you can tell how good it is. Individual reviews help.

 

I have just tried Epson and Canon as basic everyday printers. The Epson Durabrite inks are waxy and lackluster. The software on my previous HP was bizarre and told me there was an error when there wasn't. Print quality with the HP was disappointing.

 

But if you want a basic, economical printer that still produces excellent print quality, I recommend any model of Canon, even a cheapie four-color model. Try it, even as a backup, and see for yourself. I got a five-color 1-picoliter iP4300 and the results are pleasing -- but to be frank, not vastly superior compared with the basic four-color model. I suppose it's more robust and inks should last longer. Also, it's very fast -- about 10 times faster than Epson.

 

Of course, paper choice makes a huge difference.The Canon Pro range is excellent.

 

For serious prints I would consider a top-model A3 printer, but I am pleased with this Canon model for everyday use. Unfortunately I have tried to make borderless printing work, but to no avail.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[graeme_clarke]

Sol,

 

I've used a 1290 for several years now without trouble. Bronzing used to occur with some old Ilford papers, but the new Gallerie smooth gloss and pearl are great. Epson's own papers are equally good but more expensive. Be sure sure to let photoshop handle the printing, not the printer itself or you may find it puts far too much magenta onto the print. There's a tutorial on setting up colour management on the luminous Landscape site. The moral is, use a good paper and Epson's inks, and let photoshop handle the colour management.

 

Graeme

[DaveEP]

I used Epson 1280 on a Mac for a while and agree that the driver was junk. It caused me to change to Canon (9950), but I was also unhappy that I could never get the profiles to be where I needed them to be (colours were slightly out - or too dark!).

 

I recently changed to an Epson 4800 and it's awesome (and I am not using Epson paper either). Both Mac and Windows drivers do a very good job. While I am sure you don't want the 4800, what it does say is that Epson drivers on a Mac can work very well, and perhaps you should not read too much in to ancient drivers that came with the 1280.